1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
|
Return-Path: <allen.piscitello@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 632451758
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:43:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f174.google.com (mail-io0-f174.google.com
[209.85.223.174])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8D6E211
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:43:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ioii196 with SMTP id i196so19281774ioi.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=51WFjKrUDs30/2yVc06celtljKXpaIBzQ0vIXI9FoP8=;
b=g5bCPrPdAULBoFc2cW7HdqNkaC4YRKqoEGRTnhjXcArYEki2emKAs0FHxc74eaaSGf
E1REBfRNSYX6S6vANj+zCQIyd5s5xdX36HGkyD02dfnyvouZBTBD5NrtKoVsFFLswoiG
CrDOj0nCq5UT9QeLiSMUM0Iy8meMWszKdNmHxkbN+53prn4k8S5Vjl0ZM1DJVc5w1QQm
ZgUx571pcdSsWXXvkDV3FTeL0lOTjM6keBgp7zJmT3Y7+QPk7oACHgoF/5rF0KVdDdaP
S4cZj7UU/Dy9+7cWa9RqbVGPFrveUsB1dq50muwb6J2hcVKXGLDSQnR38mloOFR9PHtp
Zyug==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.40.12 with SMTP id o12mr27374053ioo.84.1443548635373;
Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.79.69.135 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0YEm7mFYosRVbcG_XgtSi8BbUraGoixy4e2=nyCBeFaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T2pDwNBrC-3w8vHeaLYZ6eoNTNU0gW741Y51YL9hU-kiA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJfRnm7gWmXUj=9Dh2o5sEXOMe6Y_4P=naY3cVt1gfLRKOpmnw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T0YEm7mFYosRVbcG_XgtSi8BbUraGoixy4e2=nyCBeFaA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 12:43:55 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJfRnm5=yrWE95T3+fzM_PxGxWJ38OnJMVxynTOKK1X9BTrgCg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Allen Piscitello <allen.piscitello@gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141d150a0a7160520e65b9a
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Is it possible for there to be two chains after a
hard fork?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:43:56 -0000
--001a1141d150a0a7160520e65b9a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>If you start with the premise that more than half of Bitcoin miners would
do something crazy that would either destroy Bitcoin or would be completely
unacceptable to you, personally... then maybe you should look for some
other system that you might trust more, because Bitcoin's basic security
assumption is that a supermajority of miners are 'honest.'
Miners not being crazy does not mean they are infallible. They may
misjudge the market and change their minds about what is the most
reasonable action based on new information. Their commitment to one fork
or another is very dynamic, and is a huge assumption missing. They may
overestimate their influence, support of the economy. Other factors may
come into play that no one thought of, and they can revert back at any
point.
Labeling things as insane or crazy is not productive.
>because Bitcoin's basic security assumption is that a supermajority of
miners are 'honest.'
Only if you rely on SPV.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Allen Piscitello <
> allen.piscitello@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I fail to see how always following a majority of miners no matter what
>> their actions somehow equates to insanity.
>
>
> Ok, I have a hidden assumption: I assume most miners are also not
> completely insane.
>
> I have met a fair number of them, and while they are often a little bit
> crazy (all entrepreneurs are a little bit crazy), I am confident that the
> vast majority of them are economically rational, and most of them are also
> meta-rational: they want Bitcoin to succeed. We've seen them demonstrate
> that meta-rationality when we've had accidental consensus forks.
>
> If you start with the premise that more than half of Bitcoin miners would
> do something crazy that would either destroy Bitcoin or would be completely
> unacceptable to you, personally... then maybe you should look for some
> other system that you might trust more, because Bitcoin's basic security
> assumption is that a supermajority of miners are 'honest.'
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
>
>
--001a1141d150a0a7160520e65b9a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">If you start with the=
premise that more than half of Bitcoin miners would do something crazy tha=
t would either destroy Bitcoin or would be completely unacceptable to you, =
personally... then maybe you should look for some other system that you mig=
ht trust more, because Bitcoin's basic security assumption is that a su=
permajority of miners are 'honest.'</span><div><span style=3D"font-=
size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Miners =
not being crazy does not mean they are=C2=A0infallible.=C2=A0 They may misj=
udge the market and change their minds about what is the most reasonable ac=
tion based on new information.=C2=A0 Their commitment to one fork or anothe=
r is very dynamic, and is a huge assumption missing.=C2=A0 They may overest=
imate their influence, support of the economy.=C2=A0 Other factors may come=
into play that no one thought of, and they can revert back at any point.</=
span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><spa=
n style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Labeling things as insane or crazy is not prod=
uctive.</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div>=
<div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">></span><span style=3D"font-size:1=
2.8px">because Bitcoin's basic security assumption is that a supermajor=
ity of miners are 'honest.'</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-si=
ze:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Only if y=
ou rely on SPV.</span></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Gavin Andresen <span dir=
=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:gavinandresen@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">g=
avinandresen@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1=
ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><span class=3D""><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Allen Piscitello <span di=
r=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:allen.piscitello@gmail.com" target=3D"_blan=
k">allen.piscitello@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D=
"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding=
-left:1ex">I fail to see how always following a majority of miners no matte=
r what their actions somehow equates to insanity.</blockquote></div><br></s=
pan>Ok, I have a hidden assumption: I assume most miners are also not compl=
etely insane.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail=
_extra">I have met a fair number of them, and while they are often a little=
bit crazy (all entrepreneurs are a little bit crazy), I am confident that =
the vast majority of them are economically rational, and most of them are a=
lso meta-rational: they want Bitcoin to succeed. We've seen them demons=
trate that meta-rationality when we've had accidental consensus forks.<=
/div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">If you=
start with the premise that more than half of Bitcoin miners would do some=
thing crazy that would either destroy Bitcoin or would be completely unacce=
ptable to you, personally... then maybe you should look for some other syst=
em that you might trust more, because Bitcoin's basic security assumpti=
on is that a supermajority of miners are 'honest.'</div><span class=
=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div><br></d=
iv>-- <br><div>--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div><div><br></div>
</div></font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a1141d150a0a7160520e65b9a--
|
